User talk:Nlu/archive71

Battle description

English sources describe the two brothers as besieging the legations inside Beijing, but this source describes a battle scene which appears to be outside of Beijing, can you clarify where and what took place?

http://www.chinalxnet.com/content/2009-03/15/content_4778_2.htm

光绪二十三年（1897）春，义和团起，马福禄、马福祥随董福祥井京，驻防蓟州。光绪二十五年（1899）六月马福祥统率马步七营，驻防山海关。八国联军从天津进攻北京，马福祥兄弟偕汉中镇总兵姚旺等，同时有义和团配合阻击，在廊坊车站合围侵略军。马福祥兄弟令骑兵下马设伏，步兵两翼包抄，敌近即放枪，敌人死伤甚众。马福祥兄弟“挥短兵闯入敌阵，喋血相搏”。敌人乘火车逃跑。八月十三日，侵略军抵正阳门，马福祥兄弟率部力战，马福禄阵亡，马福祥统率余部。八月二十四日京城失陷，慈禧挟光绪帝西逃，马福祥随驾扈从至西安，担任宫廷警卫。

And regarding Ma Biao (general), I have access to crappy snippet view English sources about his role in World War 2, the chinese ones are much longer and detailed, can you take a look at this and just summarize the basic parts of each battle (where it took place, when, who won, how many casualties), I don't need the whole thing translated and that would be copyright violation anyway since its a recent publication.

http://military.china.com/zh_cn/dljl/krzz/01/11044207/20080919/15096066.html

Rajmaan (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

As for the battle scene above, based on what the passage described, it was both outside and at Beijing. The initial part was at Langfang station (I don't know for certain, but likely to be in Langfang); then, the next engagement was at Zhengyang Gate of Beijing. Do you want a translation?

As for the battles of Ma Biao, I'll take a look at it later today and try to summarize if I can. --Nlu (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This is how I am understanding it (it describes the army as made up with First and Second Divisions, with the First Division launched in September 1937 with three brigades and Second Division formed in spring 1939 from one brigade of the First Division and two additional brigades): (also note that this text was heavily written from a pro-CCP standpoint, which meant that it largely intentionally obscured the contributions from other Nationalist army divisions, making it not completely clear how the Ma army interacted with them)

• February?, 1938: Part of the First Division attacks the Japanese forces at Yuncheng successfully (did not describe how successful or casualties), as well as destroying local bandits as well as bandits under White Lotus banner, maintains the safety for Tong Pass.
• April 1938: First Division destroys (kills?) 1,000 some White Lotus bandits, which the article claims to be secretly commanded by Japanese and "false" army officers (i.e., puppet regime, presumably Wang Jingwei's regime, but text is not completely clear).
• July 1938: First Division sent to Shangqiu area; on the way, First Division officer, Ma Yuanlin, rebels and allies with Japanese and "false" army; First Division, allied with two divisions sent from the Nationalist-held city of Luoyang, destroy (killed half; the other half jumped into water and drowned) the "false" army.
• Spring 1939: Second Division formed, given responsibility of defending Tongchuan area. One additional brigade sent to join First Division.
• Summer? 1939: First Division, then at Xiangcheng, had frequent but minor skirmishes with Japanese forces at Huaiyang.
• September 1939: First Division puts Huaiyang under siege; forces Japanese withdrawal from Huaiyang, but suffered heavy losses — 2000+ men; killed 1000+ Japanese men, small number of captives.
• Another battle shortly after: First Division killed 500+ Japanese cavalry soldiers, captured tens of horses.
• Another battle shortly after: First Division against Japanese, both sides heavy losses (no total figures); 100+ First Division soldiers trapped with no reinforcements, and committed suicide by drowning.
• May 1940: First Division moved to western Henan to regroup.
• July 1940: First Division moved to northern Anhui. Reorganized into division/battalion/company structure, and renumbered Eighth Division.
• August 1940: Eighth Division harasses one Japanese division and two "false" divisions in the Bengbu area.
• September 1940: Japanese forces attack two battalions of the Eighth Division, at that time building defensive bulwarks at Longgang Township (in Huaiyuan County); other battalions of the Eighth Division come to their aid; together, they killed hundreds of Japanese soldiers and forced retreat.
• Summer 1941: Japanese forces tried to eradicate Eighth Division by attacking it from three sides; Eighth Division escapes to Fuyang area.
• Summer 1942: Ma Bufang suspects Eighth Division's commander Ma Biao of becoming independent of his Qinghai command, and replaces him with Ma Bufang's cousin Ma Bukang, forcing Ma Biao into retirement. Ma Biao initially refused to return to Qinghai, but eventually did.
• Late 1943-early 1944: Japanese launch major attack, apparently trying to wipe out most/all Chinese positions in the Anhui/Henan region. Part of the Japanese attack involved sieging Fuyang. Eighth Division was not directly defending the siege, but helped defended it by making surprise attacks on Japanese forces, inflicting heavy losses, but also at cost to itself. After the campaign (the text did not say whether Fuyang's defenses held or not or what else occurred), the Eighth Division returned to the northern Anhui area.
• 1945: Japanese surrender. Eighth Division participates in accepting Japanese surrender at Xuzhou, but was not allowed to receive any spoils. They were then ordered to head to Shandong to battle CCP forces. Eighth Division did not want to participate in campaign, and after Ma Bukang intervened, was moved to the Fuping area in January 1946. It then was merged with the Second Division, still referred to as the Eighth Division.
• March 1946: moved to the Yongdeng area. Obliquely appeared to refer to battle with communists. (Remember that this was written with a pro-CCP perspective, at least outwardly so; author may very well be trying to avoid trouble with Chinese censors.)

--Nlu (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I want a translation of the Boxer rebellion battles.Rajmaan (talk)

光绪二十三年（1897）春，义和团起，马福禄、马福祥随董福祥井京，驻防蓟州。光绪二十五年（1899）六月马福祥统率马步七营，驻防山海关。八国联军从天津进攻北京，马福祥兄弟偕汉中镇总兵姚旺等，同时有义和团配合阻击，在廊坊车站合围侵略军。马福祥兄弟令骑兵下马设伏，步兵两翼包抄，敌近即放枪，敌人死伤甚众。马福祥兄弟“挥短兵闯入敌阵，喋血相搏”。敌人乘火车逃跑。八月十三日，侵略军抵正阳门，马福祥兄弟率部力战，马福禄阵亡，马福祥统率余部。八月二十四日京城失陷，慈禧挟光绪帝西逃，马福祥随驾扈从至西安，担任宫廷警卫。

(Rather than using the more common "Boxers," I am going to use "Yihetuan" here to stay a bit more true to the original. To be honest, I am finding some of the account not credible, but that's up to you to independently judge its credibility.)

The spring of the 23rd year of Guangxu (1897), the Yihetuan rose. Ma Fulu and Ma Fuxiang headed to the Capital [(Beijing)] with Dong Fuxiang, and they took up position at Ji Prefecture. The sixth month of the 25th year of Guangxu (1899), Ma Fuxiang led the seventh battalion of the Ma infantry to take up position at Shanhai Pass. When the Eight Country Coalition forces attacked Beijing from Tianjin, the Ma brothers, accompanied by the commander of the army at Hanzhong, Tao Wang, and others, and also aided by the raids conducted by the Yihetuan, tried to advance from Langfang Station to surround the invaders. The Ma brothers ordered the cavalry solders to dismount and set up traps, while the cavalry soldiers were divided into two wings to try to attack from the flank; they were ordered to fire when the enemy neared, inflicting many deaths and injuries on the enemy. The Ma brothers were said to "in close quarters, charged into the enemy ranks, fighting hand-to-hand." The enemy fled by trains. On the 13th day of the eighth month, the invaders reached Zhengyang Gate. The Ma brothers led their soldiers and fought valiantly. Ma Fulu died in battle, and Ma Fuxiang took over the rest of his command. On the 24th day of the eighth month, the Capital fell. [Empress Dowager] Cixi seized Emperor Guangxu and fled west. Ma Fuxiang accompanied them to Xi'an, serving as palace guard.

--Nlu (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I see that you have created/contributed to a lot of biographical pages from the 5 Dynasties 10 Kingdoms period. I'm trying to gradually create/improve pages of early Song Dynasty people. I don't know which biographies you are interested in writing? So that we don't both work on the same pages. You can click on my name and see which pages I'm working on. Cheers. Timmyshin (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for writing me. I think I probably won't write much about the Song Dynasty (since I use the Zizhi Tongjian as my main gauge as to the importance of a person, and obviously that work doesn't go into the Song Dynasty) except for very early Song figures whose careers were largely during the late Five Dynasties. I will check with you, though, when I get close to there... --Nlu (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. You're right that there is going to be little overlap for the most part, but after Later Zhou a number of figures do cross over to Song.

BTW, do you do a lot of Liao figures? Their names are so confusing. I want to ask you, how do you decide which name to use as the title, for example between Yelü Bei and Yelü Tuyu, or between Yelü Abaoji and Yelü Yi? Seems like there is no consistency. Because most literature are in Chinese, it makes sense to use the Chinese name over the Khitan name, with little controversy since they are extinct, but then not all Khitans have Chinese names. I find Liao so interesting, but with so little resources to work from. -- Timmyshin (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not planning on doing a lot of Liao figures. Certainly I am currently (I might change my mind later on this) not planning on going past Emperor Muzong, if I get there at all. I do plan to expand on articles for Empress Dowager Shulü, Emperor Taizong, and Emperor Shizong, but otherwise my lack of knowledge of Song history may prevent me from meaningful expansion on the subsequent Liao emperors. (I am having my nephew, who lives in Taiwan, to try to look for a good version of the Xu Zizhi Tongjian for me, and if he finds one, that might change.) I would suggest, with the article names, stick with imperial titles (that is the consensus, even though I disagree with it), but with non-emperors and non-empresses, consult the History of Liao and see what name is used there. The articles' texts, though, should list all the permutations of the names as alternatives in the lead. --Nlu (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Roberto Cofresi

Hello Nlu, I reverted your addition. Please do not continue to add the "Category:19th-century executions of American people" to this article nor to any article of Puerto Ricans who were born before 1917 and excecuted. Let me explain a little Puerto Rican history to you. Cofresi was not an "American" citizen. He was excecuted in 1825 when the island belonged to Spain and thus he was a Spanish subject. Puerto Ricans stopped being Spanish citizens after Oct. 30, 1898, when the United States invaded the island. From then on they were Puerto Rican citizens. In 1917, when the US approved the Jones Act Puerto Ricans were given a limited "American" citizenship (Limited because they are not allowed to vote for the President). In other words, Puerto Ricans became US citizens after 1917. Thank you and take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your note. While I understand your points and won't get into a fight with you on this, I am fully aware of Puerto Rico's status as a Spanish colony at the time, but I disagree with your assertion that that makes Cofresi a non-American, for a few reasons, largely by analogy:

1. The United States did not exist until 1776, and therefore nobody would have had American citizenship before 1776, and yet I think there is no doubt that people who were born in or who had substantially lived in the Thirteen Colonies prior to 1776 would be considered "Americans" even if they died prior to 1776.
2. Similarly, Texas and the Mexican Cessation territory did not become United States territory until the Mexican-American War. But I also think that people in those territories would still be considered "Americans" particularly since they were offered American citizenship upon ending of the war, and while I understand that the terms of the Jones Act were not identical, think that it is still analogous here; Cofresi would have been offered American citizenship had he still be living.
3. The inability to vote for the presidency doesn't mean that Puerto Ricans were not Americans. The people of U.S. territories were similarly unable to vote for the presidency until their territories were admitted to the Union, and the people of the District of Columbia continue to be unable to.

In other words, I see the point. I still disagree. But in any case, Cofresi was added as part of a quick-and-dirty bunch of additions. I have no desire to get into a dispute with you on this. --Nlu (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Execution categories

Aren't some of these execution categories getting a bit too granular? For instance, Category:21st-century executions of people from Alabama by lethal injection combines "21st-century execution" + "Executed American person" + "Executed by lethal injection" + "Executed person from Alabama". I would have thought that Category:21st-century executions of American people would have been plenty, with the other features, such as being from Alabama, being dealt with by separate categories. Why do we have to get a category for all the intersections? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they are. I may not have exercised the best judgment on this — it started out as "it seems it would be informative to have a 21st-century executed American category," and then after I started it I realized that the category would be too large and would defeat some of the early subcategorizations that I had. Thus, the granular divisions - but they may be too granular, as you pointed out. If you have suggestions on what to prune from the tree and would nominate them, I'd be willing to acquiesce. (I tend to think that categories larger than 100 should be subdivided; maybe that's too low of a threshold.) --Nlu (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It also turned out that it's a bit more granular than I thought it would be because so many death inmates' birth places are not documented (I'm sure that they are somewhere in official records, just not records easily available to me online). The subcategories may make more sense if their birth places are more accessible. --Nlu (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Which raises another issue: why are we even categorizing them by "birth place"? A person is not necessarily "from" the place they are born. Shouldn't we be categorizing them as being "from" the state that they lived in for most of their life? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Which is even more difficult to document and, in my opinion, too subjective. How long does a person have to live in a place to be "from" there? Birth places are difficult to document as it is; where a person is considered to have lived a substantial length is even more so. --Nlu (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

(Maybe we shouldn't do doing the "from STATE" divisions at all, then, since at CFD there is always a sense that we shouldn't be categorizing by birthplace.) As for nominating any of them for merging, etc.—I was kind of waiting until you had finished what you've been working on for awhile now to see overall how it would work. I didn't want to interrupt you and start nominations if you were in the middle of creating a scheme, and it's easier to decide what is desirable and what may be taking things too far once we can see the big picture of what's out there. I'm fine with most of what you have done—the vast majority, in fact. I'm OK to wait a bit longer if you're still going. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as that branch of the tree is concerned, I'm basically done. Perhaps let's both sleep on this for about two days? --Nlu (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine by me. I wasn't about to pounce on anything nomination-wise. I did want some time to consider the bigger picture, and to ask you about it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, thanks. --Nlu (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Executed people by nationality

Please, perhaps you should read the article of Treaty of Trianon. Yes, e.g. lajos Aulich was born in Bratislava, today's Slovakia, but before the treaty this city was part of the Kingdom of Hungary (under the name of Pozsony or Pressburg). So, Aulich will not be automatically Slovak, just because he was born in the current territory of Slovakia. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand the distinction, but I don't see the harm in adding the category, as a Hungarian identity is not exclusive with a Slovak identity. (It should be noted that I didn't imply that Aulich, et al., were not Hungarians; as they are now part of the new group category of Category:The 13 Martyrs of Arad, the category already is going to be a subcategory of various Hungarian categories.) (In other words, the Hungarian identity is assumed under that category; I think, in that case, I would ask you to revert your changes as in general, an article should not be in both a supercategory and a subcategory.) --Nlu (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but these categories are incorrect for a person who was definitely Hungarian. For example our first PM Lajos Batthyány was also born in Pozsony. He was from a Hungarian aristocrat family, so he was not Slovak. Constantine XI Palaiologos was born in Constantinople which later captured by the Ottomans. So, according to your logic Constantine XI, enemy of the Ottoman Emmpire was a Turkish national... --Norden1990 (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I know that they are difficulties here, but with the German/Austrian/Hungarian/Slovakian/Romanian/Ukrainian/Polish/Ukrainian/Belarusian/Lithuanian continuum I think it is useful (and I understand you may have good reasons to disagree) to indicate in these groups both self-identitied nationality and "modern" nationality, because I think one should think, "How would Aulich identify himself today?" I think that, given that minority populations of all ethnicities exists pretty much in all of these countries, he would identify as both Hungarian and Slovak. (Regardless, I understand if you disagree; but please do at least remove the superfluous Hungarian categories in light of the Martyrs of Arad category -- I created it precisely so that it wouldn't have to be repeated in all 14 articles.) --17:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I will admit, as an exception (and perhaps you can say that this is an inconsistency on my part), I didn't put the Germans born in East Prussia under the Polish/Russian categories in light of the expulsion of the Germans from those categories after World War II. --Nlu (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understant your argument about Aulich. He was a Hungarian general of German descent, but definitely was not Slovak. Whole Slovakia ("Felvidék") was part of the Kingdom of Hungary until 1920, so it is not an ethnic issue. "he would identify as both Hungarian and Slovak" - meaningless and unhistorical statement. If I elected to the National Assembly, I would be a Member of Parliament. It's similar to your sentence. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) My point is that national identity is not exclusive; that someone might consider himself a Hungarian does not preclude that person also have a Slovak(ian) identity. That's why he should, in my opinion, be in two branches of the category tree. Your mileage may vary. Regardless, I still don't see the harm in having the Slovak category. He's already in the Hungarian category tree under the Category:The 13 Martyrs of Arad. --Nlu (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

But you have to look after this. That is irrelevant what do you think. Zsigmond Perényi definitely had not an Ukrainian identity. Your categories are misleading and interpret today's status to earlier conditions (for example modern national identity did not exist until the 19th century). Anyway four members of the 13 Martyrs of Arad were executed by firing squad. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Which four? (That does definitely have to be fixed, for sure. The main article says that all 13 were hanged, so that needs to be changed, if not true.) --Nlu (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Vilmos Lázár, Arisztid Dessewffy, Ernő Kiss and József Schweidel. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to go ahead and change the categories on both the parent category and those four people. Can you modify the main article and, if you have a citation, add it? Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Category: People executed by Greece

Hi. I wonder about this. The category name is a little odd; I see the cat is populated by various ancient figures, and I'm not sure they were "executed by Greece" per se so much as by city-states (e.g., Athens) within Greece. Actually, the wording itself is weird. Category:People executed in Greece might make more sense. Then again, I could be wrong. Rivertorch (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. But there is precedence in that the people executed by various Chinese and Italian states are in subcategories of Category:People executed by China and Category:People executed by Italy. --Nlu (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll have to give it some more thought, but I think what bothers me is the preposition "by". People are executed by—or at least by order of—a government or ruler, and it's hard to see how, for instance, someone executed by the Republic of Venice could be said to have been executed "by Italy". Rivertorch (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In this case, though, if you think of "by Italy" as "by an Italian state" (rather than "by the Italian state") then it makes sense, I think. --Nlu (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Zhao Guangyin

Can you check this page: Zhao Guangyin? It used to be a redirect to Emperor Taizu of Song, but I deleted the redirect. It seems that you contributed a lot to the 3 pages linking to this page, and clearly you did NOT have Emperor Taizu of Song in mind. Thought that I'd let you know. Timmyshin (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't; I am intending to link to a future article (which I have not written yet) that would displace that redirect, about the Later Tang Dynasty chancellor, but since I (or anyone else) hasn't written it yet, I think it should remain redirected to Emperor Taizu of Song for now; in the future, when the article is written, it will/should contain a disambiguation link. --Nlu (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote a few sentences to replace the redirect link, feel free to completely rewrite it or replace it as you wish, since I know absolutely nothing about him. Timmyshin (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms rulers

Seems like there is no standard for the titles of these guys. Some use personal names, some use temple names, some like "Li Houzhu" are more like nicknames, just seems pretty arbitrary. Some have the word "emperor", some don't. Personally, I'm inclined to rename all of these guys using their personal names, but I wanted to discuss first. Timmyshin (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I would agree, except my last proposal to that effect got !voted down — without any convincing reason, in my opinion. (See Talk:Emperor Taizu of Later Liang.) If you re-propose it, I'd certainly support it. --Nlu (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't wikipureaucracy great? I do think one of the issues is that you proposed the less popular Zhu Quanzhong instead of Zhu Wen. Frankly, besides you, I don't think any of the other participating editors had ever heard of this person (or FDTK), so the only tool for them in order to participate would be Google. Problem is, Google (and the cyberworld) is actually quite dependent on Wikipedia for stuff like this, due to lack of secondary sources. Timmyshin (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, for good and for bad (and mostly it's for good) Wikipedia does require consensus. Again, if you re-propose it, I'd support it.

But while Zhu Wen would be a perfectly acceptable name as far as I am concerned, for more of his life he was known as Zhu Quanzhong. --Nlu (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, done here Talk:Emperor Gaozu of Later Jin#Requested_move. I'm glad that you agree with me on the issue.

Honestly I'd never heard of Zhu Quanzhong but I'd heard of the name Zhu Wen. I'm probably wrong, but isn't it the same issue as Liu Min (during reign) vs. Liu Chong (birth name, more popular) that you mentioned in that discussion? Timmyshin (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

As far as not familiar with the name is concerned — to be honest, and hopefully not offensive, but familiarizing yourself with material on the subject, particularly Chinese, is, I think, important. --Nlu (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No offense taken. Honestly I'm not interested in Mr. Zhu or his part of history, hence no familiarity. My interest is frankly in Later Zhou & Song, but I've been reading stuff concerning Shi Jingtang including his earlier career in Later Tang, but not any earlier.

Thanks for the comment on that page. Timmyshin (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit notices

Hey Nlu, can you add the Three Kingdoms edit notice to Annotations to Records of the Three Kingdoms and Lu Jing? Thanks. The edit notice appears to be serving its intended purpose well. There has been a significant decline in the number of non-constructive edits to Three Kingdoms articles since it was implemented. Cheers! LDS _{contact me} 11:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Transition from Sui to Tang

Who really controls Fujian in "Transition from Sui to Tang" era?--123.27.169.54 (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not completely clear to me, based on my reading of the sources. My guess is that it was Sui local governors who continued to hold onto the territory, and then, as it became clear that Tang was going to be the victor in the transitional wars, pled allegiance to Tang. (This is unlike the situation with Jiangxi, which was clearly (if not continuously) under Lin Shihong's control.) --Nlu (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hui Song translation

I need a very literal translation as close to the original text as possible. I'm working to create an article about the song writer. There is a published English translation in a book but I don't want it use it and it censors and leaves out offensive aspects of the song like the part about killing and the anti Japanese racial slur.

2009-12-10 10:21 回族在抗日戰爭中的歷史貢獻

中國回族抗戰歌 ——薛文波 敵虜飲馬黃河人，歎我民族精神消。 回民自有真肝膽，偷生為恥戰為高。 禮拜寺兮成焦土，無辜婦孺染血膏。 悲有教胞五千萬，蒙羞恥辱在今朝。 文秀英靈動我魂，彥虎烈氣猶未燒。 殺乎！殺乎，殺止乎，爭取正義賴槍刀！ 宗教示我「舍犧代」，何須流血頭顱拋， 倭寇破滅騰歡日，回族男兒懈戰袍。

舍犧代 is the Chinese transcription of Arabic šuhadāʾ, which means martyrdom. I don't need that part to be translated since its only a transcription.Rajmaan (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to do this tonight. Please check back with me if I haven't done it in a couple days. --Nlu (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As it turns out, I've decided not to do any more work during lunch for today, so this is what I got:

The Song for the War of Resistance, for the Chinese Hui -- by Xue Wenbo

The enemy barbarians are having their horses drink from the Yellow River

(I am finding the use of 人 (person) here to be curious; you sure it wasn't intended to be 水 (water)?)

Alas, our nation's spirit has disappeared

The Hui people have real livers and galls

We consider living cowardly to be shame and war to be greater

The mosques have become scorched earth

The blood and fat of innocent women and children have stained [the ground]

(I am finding it implicitly referring to the ground here, but I am not completely wedded to that interpretation)

Sadly, [even though] we have 50 million co-religious adherents

We are shamed and embarrassed at this moment

Wenxiu's brave spirit has touched my soul

Yanhu's untamed breath has not been burned

(I am assuming that Wenxiu and Yanhu are references to Chinese Hui generals?)

Kill, kill, or do we stop killing?

Seek justice through your guns and swords!

Our religion has showed us suhada

Why do we otherwise shed our blood and throw away our heads

The day that the Wako are destroyed, the day of celebration

Is when the men of the Hui will take off their war robes

--Nlu (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

you are right. it is water. Someone vandalized baidu to turn it into person, but every other website were I can find the song has water. The Wenxiu and Yangu references are correct. Du Wenxiu was the anti Manchu rebel leader in Yunnan born into a converted Han family and Bai Yanhu was an Ahong who led rebels in Shaanxi.Rajmaan (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)